What does “execution dependent” mean?
I’ve been taking a pitch and treatment around to producers, and people are responding very well to it–but one note I keep getting is that the idea is very “execution dependent.”
What exactly does this mean? It’s a high-concept comedy idea, easy to sum up in a logline. So what makes one high-concept idea more execution-dependent than another? Or is this a euphemism for “not high-concept enough”?
I’m planning to spec it out anyway, but I’d love to get a handle on what makes an idea more or less execution-proof. I’ve read your (excellent) answer about the family of robots, but that seemed to be about high concept and low concept, while this is something about the idea itself.
– Andrew
Brooklyn
“Execution dependent” means that the best version of the movie is a hit, while a mediocre incarnation is worth vastly less. It’s not a diss. Most films that win Academy Awards are execution dependent, as are many blockbusters.
For example, Slumdog Millionaire is completely execution dependent. If it didn’t fire on all cylinders, you would never have heard of it. It would have been another ambitious indie failure.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is also extremely execution dependent. There have been countless movies with adventurers seeking treasure, but the combination of elements in Raiders just clicked. If Raiders were twenty percent less awesome, it wouldn’t have a place in film history.
Other examples I can think of: Juno, Pan’s Labyrinth, The Dark Knight, The Piano, Titanic, Silence of the Lambs, Babe, Fargo, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Usual Suspects, Sling Blade, Se7en. Some of these are high concept, others aren’t. But in each case, the film’s relative success is largely a factor of how well-made it was.
Here’s a good test for whether a project is execution dependent: How many different directors could you imagine making it?
If there are five or fewer directors on your list, that’s a highly execution dependent project. And that can be a stumbling block. For Big Fish, the studio was willing to make it with Steven Spielberg or Tim Burton. Get one of them, and the studio will make the movie. Otherwise, it’s turnaround.
Many films are much less execution dependent. Consider Paul Blart: Mall Cop, or Obsessed. I haven’t seen either movie, but instinct tells me that the list of possible directors for each was much longer. Neither film needed to be perfect in order to succeed. Rather, they needed to be marketable. Both were, much to their credit.
From a studio’s perspective, there is some safety in picking movies that “anyone could direct.” You’re less likely to hit a home run creatively, but you’re also more likely put runners on base.
When a studio or producer trots out the phrase “execution dependent,” that may be a euphemism for a couple of things they’re not saying:
- “I like it, but it would have to be perfect, and we mess up movies right and left.”
- “I can’t think of five directors who could do it.”
- “I can imagine getting fired over this movie.”
- “I might buy it as a spec.”
- “I hate the idea and I’m just trying to be nice.”
I hope it’s not the last one. Good luck with the spec.
Filed under: Big Fish, Directors, Film Industry, Genres, QandA
Articles
April 28th, 2009 at 7:30 am
To me “Execution Dependent” (and I’ve heard it far too often!) means that there is no way to sell the movie to audiences based on the concept alone, and so it has to generate great word of mouth to make the studios want to invest in the marketing of it. Raiders certainly doesn’t fit into this category. Neither does Dark Knight or Titanic or Lambs or Se7en. Because even if they had sucked, there would’ve been plenty of ways to sell them. Your definition could apply to almost any good movie–it’s always hard to imagine another director having made it. A better test, considering the current state of the industry, is ask: would this movie be made today? If the answer is “no,” it’s probably execution dependent.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am
It seems like a BS phrase to me – what comedy isn’t dependent on the execution (of the actors, director, ect.)?
I suppose if the script is extremely compelling, they might think it’s not dependent on execution.
But wasn’t STAY one of those scripts?
April 28th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I always have found this phrase hilarious. It’s the closest a studio exec will come to actually saying, “We need a movie that we can make money on even if we completely fuck it up, which, let’s face it, is probably what we’ll do.”
April 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Interesting that three of the five reasons listed have little to do with the actual idea. I guess sometimes how a producer responds to a script can say more about the producer than about the script.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Eric,
If the studio has a script that allows someone to visualize what the trailer will look like, and they know they can hire Adam Sandler or Jim Carey or Seth Rogen or whoever, they are not concerned about who the director is or even how great the script is because they know how they will market that movie. Movies like Juno and Little Miss Sunshine are completely execution dependent and require something extra. Give studios some credit for understanding just how difficult it is to make movies that millions of people want to see.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Yeah, the phrase does have that air of… “execution depends on someone else ’cause I sure as heck amn’t going to touch this thing” to it, no?
April 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The other phrase I’ve heard other than “execution dependant” is…
Wow, love the script. “You’ll have to get good actors for it.”
Really? No shit, Sherlock.
And that’s for high concept commercial genre-faire. Hate to hear what they would say if I wrote Indie stuff.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I’ve never heard the “five directors” thing before — that is brilliant.
I think it also depends on where you are in your career. You never stop hearing “execution dependent,” but when you have a track record of executing dependably, people are more willing to take a chance — especially in the pitch stage.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Atlas Shrugged. Completely execution-dependent. I think James Cameron and maybe a few others could pull it off. Alas, if Renny Harlin, McG, or a hack had his way… complete mediocrity.
That was just to reel you in… but now I really feel:
What idea is not execution-dependent?
Let me put it another way. I believe in my HEART OF HEARTS that the core of excellent storytelling is execution, or HOW YOU DO IT.
I remember someone saying a comedy about the holocaust was coming out. I was incredulous, but when LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL came out, it melted me.
It IS all execution, as the terrible Mall Cop movie illustrates. There is no idea that is execution-proof, which is the presupposition you make, John. But I do see your point that there are some movies that have less margin for error in the hands of a neophyte with no voice.
But what makes this blog entry so interesting is how it reminds us there is this perpetual battle between concept and execution, with people taking one side or the other. (I side with the execution camp)
The lie in this assumption is that the two camps are not connected. No master would execute a premise that didn’t have sufficient antagonism. They said you couldn’t do a television show about a politics, and Aaron Sorkin made The West Wing anyway.
And so on…. and so on….
It is all how you do it. Big Fish could have sucked. But it was executed so friggin’ well that it melted me.
Cheers, John.
J
April 28th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I think it essentially comes down to this:
If you have to read the script to decide whether it’s good, it’s execution dependent.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The differing opinions seen here would seem to suggest that “execution dependent” doesn’t actually mean anything — or more accurately, since it means something slightly different to everyone, and producers might just be using it as a buzzword or to mask what they’re really thinking, its meaning is completely pointless.
But my own opinion? Since we’re talking about a high-concept comedy, I bet the producers simply mean “it’s funny, but it’ll only work if Sandler/Rogen/Ferrell signs on.”
April 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
To me it seems like a way of politly saying “no thanks” as I thinking John is sort of pointing out with his 5 final points.
Over the years I’ve read a lot of comedy scripts and it seems like some of them are funny on the page and some of them turn out funny because of the execution. I read the script for 40 Year Old Virgin and I didn’t think it was all that funny. But I thought the movie was hilarious. I read the Arthur script years ago and it’s a funny script and a funny movie. I suppose you could mess anything up but the script was so funny you would have had to really work to at it to make it not-funny.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
It’s a legitimate argument and one thrown around by any exec or producer that knows their shit. It’s the same thing as “a very narrow bullseye.” Some ideas require a delicate tightrope act from the writer and a director with a strong grasp of that specific tone and a proven track record with similar material. John did a great job of explaining it so I won’t bother going any further.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Ice-T had a meeting with a record exec once. The exec said he wanted to hear a sample of a proposed song before signing a contract. Ice-T says, “If I was selling hand grenades in an alley, I’m not gonna let you throw one to see if they’re any good. You either believe I’m selling good grenades or you don’t! So you either believe I can give you good records or you don’t!” The exec says, “You’re a very smart man, have you run a business before?” Ice-T replies, “No, but I did sell hand grenades in an alley once.”
“Execution dependent” means, “I don’t believe YOU can execute good!”
April 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I like that Ice-T story.
I’ve heard the phrase more in the context of the original article. I’ve heard it both regarding the execution of the writing & in terms of the execution of how the film will be made.
The frustrating thing about it is that there are very few truly great movies, in my mind, that are not execution depending regarding how the film is made. Very few movies that I think are the inspiration for spending years writing in the hope of writing something that ends up like one of those.
Sort of like the relationship between risk and reward. Very little risk in terms of execution when you talk about how the movie is made leads to a smaller variance on how great the reward is. Sure, you might have a likelihood of at least making your money back on a mediocre film that is pretty soon forgotten, with a few exceptions. While that is a perfectly fine way to run a business, I think there are far more lucrative businesses if that is your ultimate business model in terms of making films that do not depend on the execution of the filmmaking.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Of course many of these are valid points but John is speaking about a pitch and treatment which is different from a finished screenplay. A pitch is an idea and Nick is right, this is about a studio who has to say “No” or “maybe” several times a week asking themselves if, in the worst case scenario, the script came out less than perfect, would they be able to market the film to audiences based on the core idea.
Writers need to start thinking about the marketing campaign, the poster, the trailer and the :30 spot before they write a film. We met with a writer who pitched an idea and we said “Who is your audience? Who stars? What does the poster and campaign look like to sell your movie?” and got a blank expression.
You want to understand them, think like they think.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Although I understand the logic, the reality is every movie is execution dependent. Believe it or not, Paul Blart could’ve been screwed up. Look at it’s ugly step-cousin, Observe and Report.
But yes, the number of directors able to do something is a good gauge and a good point.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
It’s not an insult for someone to want to read a script to decide if it’s good. Most (all?) ideas are hard to evaluate on the strength of the idea alone, so bsent some compelling reason, there’s really no reason to buy a pitch when you can wait til later and read the script. Some examples of compelling reasons are…
“This is a hot writer we want to be in business with” (think David Benioff for “Troy”)
“This is the kind of teen movie that we can count on to turn a profit from a writer whose last teen movie turned a profit” (think Jessica Bendinger’s “Stick It”),
April 30th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
So how does something like Juno find a home? It seemed to me to be appealing almost solely because of the execution and the writing itself–if you tried to describe it to someone who hadn’t read it, it would sound like just another teen-pregnancy story. Or did she skip the pitch and start with a finished script? Otherwise, it seems like you’re in the position of trying to reassure people that “it really IS funny”…
May 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
@Paula:
I was making that remark decidedly from the producer/studio exec POV. First of all, they hate reading scripts, and most of them don’t. Second of all, they ideally want something they can sell based on the title alone, that will be marketable regardless of the content — which would make reading the script irrelevant.
@awfulstink:
Juno was made in the indie world, which still operates on the (charmingly old-fashioned) principle that a great script can make a great movie. Diablo Cody wrote it, Jason Reitman (who had already made the successful “Thank You For Smoking” for Fox Searchlight) read it, Searchlight gave it the greenlight and got some good actors to sign on. In the big-studio world, it never would or could have happened that way; a major, major actor on the order of Reese Witherspoon or George Clooney would have to have expressed interest in it before a studio head would even consider greenlighting it.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@ Nick,
I mostly disagree. Sure, people would love to buy a pitch and not have to read the script, and yet a) pitch sales are less common than spec sales, which means that, like it or not, producers and execs are reading, and b) even when they buy a pitch, they eventually have to read the script, over and over again as it happens, since that’s what the development process requires. Again, whether they like to read or not is beside the point. They do read.
@ awfulstink,
Juno got made because someone read the script…and decided that at a certain budget it stood a good chance of turning a profit. That’s not really about execution driven or not. Most movies that are made are either developed or based on a sold script, not a sold pitch, so almost every movie is made because of someone’s judgment about the script’s prospects. Juno was low-budget enough that it could turn a profit without having to gross $300M, and that helps with projects that aren’t’ definite blockbusters (which again isn’t about whether it’s execution driven so much as it’s about whether it’s obviously commercially viable). Of course, this isn’t always enough. Slumdog Millionaire came dangerously close to never getting a U.S. Theatrical release despite the quality of the finished film (to say nothing of the script). It was Danny Boyle’s relationships that got it a 11th hour distributor. In general it’s worth knowing that there are many many factors that determine whether any movie gets made.
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“Most movies that are made are either developed or based on a sold script, not a sold pitch, so almost every movie is made because of someone’s judgment about the script’s prospects.”
Ok, do you mean only when it comes to indies? If we’re talking mainstream commercial fare, no one is going to see the script if it can’t get through the pitch stage first, yes?
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@scriptshadow
Did you just…actually…say Observe and Report was the BAD version of Paul Blart? That’s an astonishingly odd stance to take.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@scriptshadow
I also have to say, you must have completely misunderstood John’s blog/column to come to that conclusion. Observe and Report is not a different execution of Paul Blart, and they most certainly aren’t “step-cousins.” The lead characters have the same profession, but outside of that, there are no connections, tonally or in terms of narrative. You have an incredibly superficial viewpoint.
You couldn’t even say Deep Impact or Armageddon are step-cousins if we’re considering the execution of the material.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
You, and some commenters, listed several examples of execution dependent movies. Can you think of any examples of execution independent movies?
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
@Andy
Basically anything where you can hire a Shawn Levy, Adam Shankman, Brett Ratner, Bryan Robbins, Steve Carr, Richard Donner, Ron Howard, John Turtletaub etc. I’m not knocking any of those directors, I actually really like a few of them, but this is their bread and butter.
SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD COMMERCIAL CONCEPT/SCRIPT + LIKABLE ACTORS + COMPETENT DIRECTOR = THAT TYPE OF MOVIE
May 4th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Still looking for titles.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Andy:
Any sequel that’s made without any or most of the original participants, on the assumption that the concept alone will put asses in the seats. Jaws 2 through 4, Daddy Day Camp, Dumb & Dumber-er, Son of the Mask.
You can extend that rule to include many films made from “pre-sold” properties with no big stars or creative talent: Bratz, Leave it to Beaver, Lost in Space, Hitman, the recent Street Fighter movie, House of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and all those other horror quasi-remakes.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@Andy:
JUST MARRIED, ARE WE THERE YET?, SPLASH, VARSITY BLUES, NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM, BIG FAT LIAR, PAUL BLART etc.
@Nick:
I don’t think you understand what “execution dependent” means.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@Nick
To clarify, SON OF THE MASK is especially “execution dependent.” One of the most “execution dependent” genres are FX comedies with a dark sense of humor.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@Ben:
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I specifically didn’t put Night at the Museum because (a) it was huge-budget and (b) it probably wouldn’t have been made without Ben Stiller.
Same thing with “Click.” Super-high-concept, but who knows if it would have been made without Sandler’s involvement.
The definition I’m working from is movies that were made and sold based on their concepts or properties — not on their budgets, stars, or quality.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
@Nick
I’ve never heard anyone use the term “execution dependent” in terms of a film needing a specific star or director to get a greenlight. I’ve only heard it used in a way of saying it’s an easy movie to fuck up. We’re not talking about how easy or hard it is for a movie to get made, we’re talking about how easy or hard it is to make a specific project, script, or idea work as a final finished commercial product.
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM isn’t an easy movie to fuck up. Twenty directors could have made it. Twenty stars could have been in it. Again, we’re not talking in terms of a greenlight. I can’t imagine a studio looking at that script and concept and saying it’s “execution dependent.” Twentieth Century Fox, at least the current regime, is not in the business of making “execution dependent” movies.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Ben, I’d argue that Nick is right that pretty much all sequels and projects based on popular licenses are execution independent (or at least the studios consider them to be so). Son of the Mask bombed, but that was because it was years too late when nobody remembered the original movie, and it didn’t have Jim Carrey. It would have tanked regardless of quality, so the execution still wasn’t that relevant to its success.
Big budget FX comedies are probably often execution independent with the exception of needing a big name like Ben Stiller to guarantee making the money back.
It should be noted that even when a movie seems “execution independent” that’s still no guarantee that it will be a hit.
And while I haven’t seen either, Paul Blart and Observe and Report look pretty darn similar from the ads, probably a big reason the latter did so poorly. I have no idea how good either movie is, but in terms of financial success, O&R certainly is the ugly step cousin.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
@ awfulstink,
No, I don’t just mean indies. Studio executives, producers and development execs at production companies all read scripts. They get them from writers agents. For a working writer, you pitch because you want to sell your pitch, not because you want someone to say, okay, I’ll read the script. It sounds like you’re approaching the business without connections and making cold calls to pitch your material in hopes that someone will read you??? Not sure, but that’s not the way the business works (though maybe someone’s succeeded at that, who knows). Every script I’ve ever written has been read around town by producers, studio execs, and production company execs. I’m not at John’s level by a stretch, but even at my level (unproduced, have written for-hire, have had several near misses with projects that I originated or wrote for hire), this is the case.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Great question and post. I love your blog.